10,000 Depositions Later Podcast Por arte de portada

10,000 Depositions Later Podcast

De: Jim Garrity
Escúchala gratis

  • Resumen

  • From Jim Garrity, the country’s leading deposition expert, comes this podcast for hardcore litigators. The subject? Taking and defending depositions.


    Each episode is a one-topic, mini field guide, meant to educate and inform trial lawyers looking for world-class deposition strategies and tactics. Garrity includes a general discussion of the topic, specific insights and guidance, questions to ponder, and case citations to support his observations. They’re jam-packed with immediately useful advice and guidance.


    Garrity has appeared as lead trial counsel in more than two thousand federal and state civil cases. His personal deposition experience now far exceeds the 10,000 mentioned in the title. (For business reasons, his publisher did not want him to update the title number.) He’s been up against the best litigators at hundreds of firms, from the nation’s largest to sole practitioners, and there’s literally no tactic, trick, variation or strategy he hasn’t seen hundreds of times. Indeed, one federal judge, commenting in open court, observed that Garrity “has pulled multiple rabbits out of multiple hats,” meaning he wins cases against inconceivable odds. How? Because of his extraordinary deposition skills. Depositions are the decisive factor in nearly all settlements and trials. You cannot achieve excellent outcomes if you cannot prevail in depositions.


    Garrity is famous for his simple, keen observation: “Depositions are the new trial.” Why? Because almost none of your witnesses will ever testify anywhere other than in a deposition. Yale University Professor Marc Galanter, in his law review article titled “The Disappearance of Civil Trials in the United States,” opened with this shocking statistic: “Since the 1930’s, the proportion of civil cases concluded at trial has declined from about 20% to below 2% in the federal courts and below 1% in state courts.”


    So depositions are in fact the new trial. Except for a tiny fraction of your cases, the court reporter's office is the only place where your testimony will be taken and heard. And that is where your case will be won or lost. You can’t afford anything less than expert-level skill in the deposition arts.


    This podcast, based on Garrity's best-selling book,10,000 Deposition Later: The Premier Litigation Guide for Superior Deposition Practice (3d Ed., 450 pp.; Amazon, Barnes & Noble), is a litigator’s dream, not only revealing cutting-edge techniques and procedures, but telling you how to combine them creatively and successfully. Learn how to gain advantage at every step. Learn the path to victory and learn where the landmines are along that path. Discover the legitimate (and illegitimate) tactics opponents use that you’ve never seen before.


    The podcast is heavy on insights you can immediately implement. Regardless of your years of experience, the episodes will provide an astonishing advantage. And each episode contains citation to court decisions to support Garrity’s advice.


    His expert guidance begins with the moment you first conceive plans to capture testimony – whether by deposition, affidavit or EUO (and he’ll tell you how to figure out which to use and when). Most importantly, he explains what he does and why. No part of the deposition process will be overlooked – forming the battle plan, scheduling, dealing with reporters, taking depositions, defending them, prepping witnesses to make them invincible, handling every conceivable type of witness, making objections, dealing with obstructive lawyers, and tips pertinent to deposition transcripts, from the moment of receipt through trial.


    If you’re serious about developing killer deposition skill sets, subscribe to this podcast so that you receive each episode automatically in your feet as they are uploaded.

    All rights reserved.
    Más Menos
activate_primeday_promo_in_buybox_DT
Episodios
  • Episode 140 -Depo Case Digest: (1) OK to Make Pre-Depo Demand for 30(b)(6) Designee Names (2) Courts Favoring In-Person Depos Again (3) Checking Court Reporter Bills for Fleas and Ticks

    Episode 140 -Depo Case Digest: (1) OK to Make Pre-Depo Demand for 30(b)(6) Designee Names (2) Courts Favoring In-Person Depos Again (3) Checking Court Reporter Bills for Fleas and Ticks
    Jun 22 2024

    As a result of listener requests, today we add a new kind of show—the Depo Digest episode—to our podcast. These new segments will supplement the regular single-topic deep dives for which we're known. The Depo Digest installments, in contrast, will quickly highlight three or four brand-new rulings of interest to you as a litigator. Jim Garrity explains that our team reviews more than 500 deposition-related rulings weekly. Not all justify a full episode by themselves, but many are still of real practical value. So we're passing these along to you in digest form, yet another powerful tool to help you stay at the top of your deposition game. We heard you, and we're acting on your excellent suggestion. Thanks!

    SHOW NOTES

    Burton v. United States of America, Case No. 1:18-CV-02039 (JHR) (SDA), 2024 WL 305-6940 (S. D. New York June 19, 2024) (finding that 2015 amendments to FRCP 30(b)(6), requiring conferral, can be read to require disclosure of corporate designees and their resumes prior to deposition to facilitate “the efficiency and productivity of the deposition”)

    In re Chrysler Pacifica Fire Recall Products Liability Litigation MDL, No. 22-3040, 2024 WL 3048495 (E.D. Mich. June 18, 2024) (finding that routine inconvenience and expense of traveling to forum for deposition is not “good cause” justifying protective order allowing plaintiffs to appear for deposition by remote video)

    Williams, et al. v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., No. CV-20-01701 PSG, 2024 WL 2108841 (C.D. Calif. Apr. 30, 2024) (order rejecting taxability of court reporter convenience add-ons for litigation packages, logistics and processing, concierge tech support, and virtual primary participants)
    Más Menos
    9 m
  • Episode 139 - Unpeeling the Layers of the Deponent's Memory

    Episode 139 - Unpeeling the Layers of the Deponent's Memory
    Jun 8 2024
    According to current cognitive psychology and neuroscience understanding, our memories are multilayered constructs composed of personal experiences and information acquired from external sources. So, when questioning witnesses about their recollections, it's crucial to understand what those layers are made up of. Is it purely personal recollection? Does it include what they were told by others? Does it include what they were told when their lawyer prepped them for the deposition? Examining the underlying sources or layers of the deponent’s knowledge helps identify the individuals and documents that influenced and possibly biased what the witness says.Be sure to click through to our home page if you don't see the complete list of cites in the show notes. And - please - leave us a 5-star review wherever you hear this podcast? It's a free, fast, and incredible way to thank our production team for the research and time spent producing this free resource for you. Our whole team thanks you!SHOW NOTESIn re FirstEnergy Corp. Sec. Litig., No. 2:20-CV-03785-ALM-KAJ, 2024 WL 1984802, at *14 (S.D. Ohio May 6, 2024) (“Seemingly, FirstEnergy argues that all facts about the internal investigation are privileged or protected because, at some point, these facts were communicated by lawyers to various individuals. Time and again, courts have rejected this type of argument. While communications between attorneys and clients are privileged, facts are not. Humphreys, Hutcheson and Moseley v. Donovan, 755 F.2d 1211, 1219 (6th Cir. 1985) (citing Upjohn Co., 449 U.S. at 395). And facts do not become privileged or protected because they were provided to witnesses by attorneys or acquired in anticipation of litigation. See, e.g., Protective Nat. Ins. Co. of Omaha v. Commonwealth Ins. Co., 137 F.R.D. 267, 280 (D. Neb. 1989) (“There is simply nothing wrong with asking for facts from a deponent even though those facts may have been communicated to the deponent by the deponent's counsel.”); United States v. BAE Sys. Tactical Vehicle Sys., LP, No. 15-12225, 2017 WL 1457493, at *5–6 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 25, 2017); Basulto v. Netflix, Inc., No. 22-21796, 2023 WL 3197655, at *2–3 (S.D. Fl. May 2, 2023) (“[F]act-oriented discovery is permitted even if the witness learned about the facts from her attorneys.”); Clear Cast Grp., Inc. v. Ritrama, Inc., No. 1:09-cv-169, 2011 WL 13334451, at *6 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 15, 2011). So too here. Facts related to the internal investigation are not shielded simply because they were funneled through attorneys to witnesses”)Protective Nat. Ins. Co. of Omaha v. Commonwealth Ins. Co., 137 F.R.D. 267, 278–79 (D. Neb. 1989) (citing Sedco Intern., S.A. v. Cory, 683 F.2d 1201, 1205 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1017, 103 S.Ct. 379, 74 L.Ed.2d 512 (1982) for the proposition that “No contention can be made that the attorney-client privilege precludes disclosure of factual information. The privilege does not protect facts communicated to an attorney. Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 395–96, 101 S.Ct. 677, 685–86, 66 L.Ed.2d 584 (1981). Clients cannot refuse to disclose facts which their attorneys conveyed to them and which the attorneys obtained from independent sources. Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 508, 67 S.Ct. 385, 392, 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947); 8 J. Wigmore, Wigmore on Evidence § 2317 (McNaughton rev. 1961).State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. New Horizont, Inc., 250 F.R.D. 203, 214 (E.D. Pa. 2008) (quoting In re Linerboard Antitrust Litig., 237 F.R.D. 373, 384 (E.D.Pa.2006) (“ ‘[T]here is simply nothing wrong with asking for facts from a deponent even though those facts may have been communicated to the deponent by the deponent's counsel.’ ” (quoting Protective Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Commonwealth Ins. Co., 137 F.R.D. 267, 280 (D.Neb.1989))).)State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. New Horizont, Inc., 250 F.R.D. 203, 215 (E.D. Pa. 2008) (“Contrary to State Farm's contention, the mere fact that counsel for State Farm may have provided such information to the witness in preparation for the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition does not convert the information into attorney work product. Were State Farm's logic followed to its full extent, anytime an attorney is involved in preparing a Rule 30(b)(6) witness, such preparation would be futile because the witness would inevitably be precluded from testifying to anything learned from the attorney. Were this the rule, every Rule 30(b)(6) deposition in which an attorney was involved in preparing the witness would be doomed from the start”)Palmisano v. Paragon 28, Inc., No. 21-60447-CIV, 2021 WL 1686948, at *6 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 7, 2021) (“Thus, while the privilege applies when a questioner directly asks a deponent about discussions with counsel, the “attorney-client privilege simply does not extend to facts known to a party that are central to that party's claims, even if such facts came to be known through communications with counsel who had ...
    Más Menos
    8 m
  • Episode 138 - When Must a Party Produce Documents to Be Used By a 30(b)(6) Designee at Deposition (Or Reviewed Beforehand?)

    Episode 138 - When Must a Party Produce Documents to Be Used By a 30(b)(6) Designee at Deposition (Or Reviewed Beforehand?)
    May 15 2024

    In this episode, Jim tackles the problem of 30(b)(6) witnesses showing up with voluminous notes and documents to use in refreshing their memory about the topics to be addressed. Are these witnesses automatically required to give you those notes and materials ahead of time? If not, is there anything you can do to get them beforehand? And, what about getting copies of documents these and other deponents looked at before the deposition but didn't bring with? For the answers to these and other questions, listen in. And thanks for being a loyal listener of the podcast! We appreciate you!

    SHOW NOTES

    ChampionX LLC, f/k/a Windrock, Inc. v. Resonance Systems, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:21-CV-288-TAV-JE M (E. D. Tennessee Oct. 19, 2023) (providing that documents used during a deposition to refresh witnesses recollection must be produced to the adverse party while deposition is in progress, and need not be produced ahead of time, barring some other obligation)

    Arrowood Indem. Co. The Lubrizol Corp. v. United States Fire Ins. Co., No. 1:10 CV 2871, 2015 WL 12734892, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 31, 2015) (“Fed. R. Evid. 612. Rule 612 applies to depositions and deposition testimony through Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(c)”)

    Sporck v. Peil, 759 F.2d 312, 317 (3d Cir. 1985) This rule is applicable to depositions and deposition testimony by operation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(c) (“Examination and cross-examination of witnesses may proceed as permitted at the trial under the provisions of the Federal Rules of Evidence.”)

    Antero Res. Corp. v. Tejas Tubular Prod., Inc., 516 F. Supp. 3d 752, 753 (S.D. Ohio 2021) (“Importantly, Rule 612 applies to deposition testimony”)

    Antero Resources Corporation v. Tejas Tubular Products, Inc., 2021 WL363550, No. 2:19-CV-804 (S. D. Ohio Feb.2, 2021) (if witness uses documents for a testimonial purpose–as [the corporate representative did ]-any claim of work product protection over those documents is waived; further holding that, where conflict exists between the command of Fed. R. Evid. 612 to disclose materials used to refresh recollection, and protection provided by the attorney-client privilege, the weight of authority holds that privilege is waived).

    United States v. Holden, 557 F.3d 698, 703–04 (6th Cir. 2009) (“Rule 612 does not apply where a witness refers to documents for purposes other than refreshing recollection”)

    K & S Assocs., Inc. v. Am. Ass'n of Physicists in Med., No. 3:09-1108, 2012 WL 4364087, at *3 (M.D. Tenn. Sept. 21, 2012) (citing Nutramax Lab., Inc., 183 F.R.D. at 468, 473) (finding that documents were used for a “testimonial purpose” where the witness's review of them “unavoidably enhanced his recollection of events”)

    Gilbert v. Atlantic Trust Co., N.A., 2005 WL8176938 (D. N.H. Nov. 17, 2005) (order denying motion to compel documents reviewed by deponent prior to deposition, under FRE 612, because of movant's failure to establish predicate during deposition)

    FRE 612 - Writings Used to Refresh A Witness
    Más Menos
    21 m
Economía Éxito Personal
Más Menos

Lo que los oyentes dicen sobre 10,000 Depositions Later Podcast

Calificaciones medias de los clientes
Total
  • 5 out of 5 stars
  • 5 estrellas
    7
  • 4 estrellas
    0
  • 3 estrellas
    0
  • 2 estrellas
    0
  • 1 estrella
    0
Ejecución
  • 5 out of 5 stars
  • 5 estrellas
    7
  • 4 estrellas
    0
  • 3 estrellas
    0
  • 2 estrellas
    0
  • 1 estrella
    0
Historia
  • 5 out of 5 stars
  • 5 estrellas
    7
  • 4 estrellas
    0
  • 3 estrellas
    0
  • 2 estrellas
    0
  • 1 estrella
    0

Reseñas - Selecciona las pestañas a continuación para cambiar el origen de las reseñas.

Reseñas de Audible.com

Opiniones de Amazon
Ordenar por:
Filtrar por:
  • Total
    5 out of 5 stars
  • Ejecución
    5 out of 5 stars
  • Historia
    5 out of 5 stars
Imagen de perfil para ☺️

Beyond helpful

Incredible resource for those seeking to improve their knowledge on depositions. Excellent examples, well cited, succinct and to the point without unnecessary pontification. Garrity’s extensive experience makes him a more superior expert than those who have written books with a fraction of the experience.

Denunciar

Se ha producido un error. Vuelve a intentarlo dentro de unos minutos.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

  • Total
    5 out of 5 stars
  • Ejecución
    5 out of 5 stars
  • Historia
    5 out of 5 stars
Imagen de perfil para Dima Tuchinsky

Very succinct, practical & helpful;

Very succinct, practical and helpful; easy to follow and listen on the go
Strongly recommend lawyers looking to brush up on deps and some practical tips

Denunciar

Se ha producido un error. Vuelve a intentarlo dentro de unos minutos.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

  • Total
    5 out of 5 stars
  • Ejecución
    5 out of 5 stars
  • Historia
    5 out of 5 stars
Imagen de perfil para Joseph LaFleur

Excellent info

This podcast is a game changer for me. I deal with these argumentative questions often and this is the answer I’ve been looking for!

Denunciar

Se ha producido un error. Vuelve a intentarlo dentro de unos minutos.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

  • Total
    5 out of 5 stars
  • Ejecución
    5 out of 5 stars
  • Historia
    5 out of 5 stars
Imagen de perfil para Amazon Customer

great

another great topic with ideas and suggestions on to bring in to your own practice.

Denunciar

Se ha producido un error. Vuelve a intentarlo dentro de unos minutos.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña